This past Monday, William Olson of the National Defense University gave a lecture as part of the Middle East Studies Program's Fall Lecture Series entitled \Transnational Threats to U.S. National Interests."" The speech would turn out to be a rather straightforward overview of international organized crime, but that was not what people were anticipating. The fliers advertising the speech gave the impression that the title ""Transnational Threats to U.S. National Interests,"" meant a talk about Iraq.
Given the title, coupled with the fact that Olson used to be a high-ranking official in the now defunct Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, it is easy to see why the unassuming Olson was welcomed by organized protest in the form of the socialist ""Stop the War"" organization. The Stop the War organization does a great credit to the Iraq debate, and the UW campus greatly benefits from the political diversity and passion the members of the organization provide. However, their protest was less of an anti-war demonstration than a mindless mob seeking the head of a high-level official who was involved in the Iraq war.
Stop the War's behavior was an open act of disrespect to the entire political environment on campus, and was a great disservice to the organization it represented and the entire anti-war movement on campus. The International Socialist Organization, which backed Stop the War group, does not need to be discontinued, but a definite re-evaluation of their tactics is more than necessary.
The intricately planned protest was complete with signs, hecklers and bright yellow pamphlets. There were only 30 or 35 total audience members, and about one fourth of them were the socialists. It was immediately evident that the scale of the protest and the conduct of the protesters would overshadow the delivery and even the content of the lecture. The socialists, in preparing their protests against the war, had come seeking a war of their own. Their subsequent behavior proved that they wanted an actual confrontation more than a discussion.
During the entire duration of the speech, the socialists were disruptive and outright rude. At least twice the lights flickered, and they routinely and obnoxiously coughed out loud in a manner reminiscent of someone dying of the ebola virus. They treated the lecturer as if he was a substitute teacher in an 8th grade class, and their protest seemed more like a prank than passionate activism.
Their childish behavior was amplified further by the fact that their pamphlet itself was littered with misspelled words. These simple mistakes reflected their lack of professionalism and diluted the validity of their argument. You cannot very well call the June 28 transfer of authority ""theatrical,"" if you spell theatrical with double ""T's.""
They came wishing for a final reckoning of the war debate, but instead Olson lectured about international organized crime. His prepared remarks did not even broach the Iraq question. The climax of his argument was an articulate criticism of the lack of a sound and consistent policy regarding international crime more than an endorsement of the government. In fact, Olson, referring to a sign that read ""Troops out now"" commented, ""I think that's a sentiment most of the troops in Iraq would agree with right now."" His speech was ripe with definite misgivings and he critiqued the CPA itself in an answer to a question, ""What was the CPA? Not an international organization, not a U.S. government organization, not a non-governmental organization. I don't know what it was. It wasn't a good situation."" That is definitely not a resounding statement in support for the war, and given the fact that Olson directly reported to Donald Rumsfeld, it is a scathing criticism of the occupation.
But the socialists refused to budge. Their questions were confrontational and absurd given what the lecture was about. It is within all bounds of common sense to protest the war, but it's another thing to attack the lecturer who didn't even mention Iraq in his speech.
The socialists at the lecture on Monday should not be chastised for the intensity of their convictions, or for their desire for dissent. They do not need admonishing for making the Iraq debate uncomfortable. However, their actions only detracted from the political environment on campus. The foundations for thoughtful political discourse rest upon the most basic democratic principle of letting the other have his say. Even though it is the issues and opinions that dominate politics, it is decorum that makes discussion possible.
Jake Herrera is a junior majoring in Middle Eastern studies. He can be reached at opinion@dailycardinal.com. His column runs every other Monday in The Daily Cardinal.
